1730 replies to this topic

[Ellipses]

So what part of race isn't defined by racial features?
If racial features are inherited, and therefore genetic, but race isn't, then you're going to need to justify that distinction.


I think you mean allele, and no, that's not necessarily the case at all.
I really don't think you understand what you're quoting. You cannot, it is true, use a genetic sequence to map a person's race accurately, but to say that "race has no basis in genetics" is a snappy soundbite, and a gross oversimplification.


Relevance?


I don't think you're lying, I think it's amusing that you think your high school diploma entitles you to lecture me on the subject of my degree.


Wonderful. More quotes that you haven't contextualised.




It's incredible that you don't seem to know the difference between a paper and a book...
Just so we're clear, I'm not interested in arguing for or against the claims of this book, or the concept in general.


Regrettably, your appraisal of my abilities is as irrelevant as your aside on transcription.
It's also worth noting that ad hominem attacks are not generally considered a valid debating technique. Just so you are aware.


There's another one.


And another.


Actually, I believe the exact quote you're referring to is from a medical anthropologist whose later work supports the notion that race is a useful, if underconsidered, diagnostic tool.


And one last ad hominem just for luck/fun.

"I don't think you're lying, I think it's amusing that you think your high school diploma entitles you to lecture me on the subject of my degree."

"It's also worth noting that ad hominem attacks are not generally considered a valid debating technique. Just so you are aware."

So you're trying to make an argument that I'm using logical fallacies to make my point and you say that. Not hypocritical! Trying to dispute my points based on my qualifications? Which is fairly reasonable, but what I'm arguing isn't that I discovered unification laws in physics - and people should just trust that my equations work. It's pretty common ground among most people. It doesn't take any kind of diploma to make a valid argument. Just cause someone doesn't have a degree their points aren't valid? Right, thats not a logical fallacy itself.

"Regrettably, your appraisal of my abilities is as irrelevant as your aside on transcription.
It's also worth noting that ad hominem attacks are not generally considered a valid debating technique. Just so you are aware."

Transcription is basically expressing the genes. However, some genes that are part of the genome are not always expressed and described. If you had any experience in biology you'd know that. I know my description of transcription isn't exactly detailed , but its correct and good luck disputing it. And I might add that thats another logical fallacy attack.


"It's incredible that you don't seem to know the difference between a paper and a book...
Just so we're clear, I'm not interested in arguing for or against the claims of this book, or the concept in general."

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I was supposed to buy you the book and read to you every line? A summary of the book and its reaction among others isn't quite enough.

But, I give up. This debate is really going no where. We both made our points and thats all we can do. I've said all I wanted to say in previous posts and we're both just basically repeating ourselves.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 07:28 AM.

[Sweeney]

So you're trying to make an argument that I'm using logical fallacies to make my point and you say that. Not hypocritical! Trying to dispute my points based on my qualifications?

I wasn't disputing your point based on your qualifications, I was just pointing out that that you assumed I had no experience in the field, when in fact my own experience vastly outweighs your own.

Which is fairly reasonable, but what I'm arguing isn't that I discovered unification laws in physics - and people should just trust that my equations work. It's pretty common ground among most people. It doesn't take any kind of diploma to make a valid argument. Just cause someone doesn't have a degree their points aren't valid? Right, thats not a logical fallacy itself.

Again, not what I said.

Transcription is basically expressing the genes. However, some genes that are part of the genome are not always expressed and described. If you had any experience in biology you'd know that. I know my description of transcription isn't exactly detailed , but its correct and good luck disputing it. And I might add that thats another logical fallacy attack.

That's not a logical fallacy, I was pointing out that your aside on transcription is irrelevant.
Which it is.

I know that not all *alleles are expressed in every human. What I don't see is how that's relevant to a discussion on heredity.

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I was supposed to buy you the book and read to you every line? A summary of the book and its reaction among others isn't quite enough.

No, you were supposed to link me to the academic paper that you were referencing. Primary literature.
Apologies for assuming you were up to speed on normal referencing protocol.

But, I give up. This debate is really going no where. We both made our points and thats all we can do. I've said all I wanted to say in previous posts and we're both just basically repeating ourselves.

Yes, well, I can't help but repeat myself when you're not making any new points to confront my rebuttals.
I asked you a very, very simple question in the post you last quoted, but you totally ignored it.

[Volition]

I'm confused. You're against religion because it is ignorant. This ignorance has led to things like the Holocaust, which obviously you do not deny nor forget. Yet you are HAPPY that people are dying simply because of their beliefs? Are you also happy to see salesmen die, because they push products on people who do not want to hear about it? Your "Good Riddance" is out of line; nobody should die because of what they believe, regardless of how incorrect it may be, so long as nobody's rights are violated.

It's not dying because of what they believe. It's dying because you're going into someone else's country and telling them that what they believe is wrong and is gonna get them sent to hell. Salesmen can be told to go away, missionaries keep on going back

[Ellipses]

I wasn't disputing your point based on your qualifications, I was just pointing out that that you assumed I had no experience in the field, when in fact my own experience vastly outweighs your own.


Again, not what I said.


That's not a logical fallacy, I was pointing out that your aside on transcription is irrelevant.
Which it is.

I know that not all *alleles are expressed in every human. What I don't see is how that's relevant to a discussion on heredity.


No, you were supposed to link me to the academic paper that you were referencing. Primary literature.
Apologies for assuming you were up to speed on normal referencing protocol.


Yes, well, I can't help but repeat myself when you're not making any new points to confront my rebuttals.
I asked you a very, very simple question in the post you last quoted, but you totally ignored it.

"wasn't disputing your point based on your qualifications, I was just pointing out that that you assumed I had no experience in the field, when in fact my own experience vastly outweighs your own."

Right... It's pretty clear to anyone who can read that you were disputing my points based on my qualifications ,but thats going to lead to another endless argument.

"I don't think you're lying, I think it's amusing that you think your high school diploma entitles you to lecture me on the subject of my degree."

In other words, your opinion on this subject doesn't matter because you don't have a degree like me. How else could you interpret it? I mean, this is pretty clear cut. I don't even know how do you dispute that.

"That's not a logical fallacy, I was pointing out that your aside on transcription is irrelevant.
Which it is.

I know that not all *alleles are expressed in every human. What I don't see is how that's relevant to a discussion on heredity."

I said there is no gene that is only expressed in one group. So, its impossible to look at someones genome and say "oh hes white and I'm sure". I was just giving insight into how we have the same genes yet its expressed in a certain way or not expressed.

"No, you were supposed to link me to the academic paper that you were referencing. Primary literature.
Apologies for assuming you were up to speed on normal referencing protocol."

I've linked pretty much everything I referenced. The one thing I didn't link was when I referred to the Bell Curve. Theres so many results that pops up because it was a very controversial project - not trying to go through all that work to find it. Also, it was a book. You're welcome to buy it. I'm afraid I can't buy the book to you.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0684824299

"Yes, well, I can't help but repeat myself when you're not making any new points to confront my rebuttals.
I asked you a very, very simple question in the post you last quoted, but you totally ignored it. "

Well the points were already made but I guess you didn't catch on to them. I guess I'll repeat myself one last time.

My point: The classifications in which we call race are skin deep and has no real genetic implications. Well I guess in terms of genetics, you could say black people have dark skin tones. So after we classify them into the race, we group them on a physical quality. In other words, its really not showing anything. A difference in genetic basis should mean that there is a significant difference. So lets take for example birds. Darwin saw that there was a fundamental beak difference between birds. This has far greater implications. It means there was an evolutionary change that caused this. In terms of humans, there was no evolutionary change. It was simply one group of people migrating to another area. There were no conditions that made natural selection occur - which was different in the bird case. A blind person can tell the difference between the 2 birds but not the 2 different skin tones. Likewise, with a genome. A difference in genetic basis would really mean that when early humans started migrating, there were conditions for natural selection that differ from each group. For example, lets consider 2 populations of birds in 2 different areas. If in one area, a certain type of beak seems to have an advantage in getting food then that beak would be subject to natural selection - asssuming all the other conditions of natural selection occur. Then, we can say there is a genetic basis in those 2 birds. In the case of humans, the qualities that promote reproduction are the same - good looks, strong men, etc etc. So, we can think of it as us being essentially the same.

So the argument I see against what I wrote above is "So if we're so similiar then why are there different skin colors?". So lets consider only me and my sister -obviously we're the same race. I have black hair and she has blonde hair. Lets say I mate with someone who only has black hair and whose the same race as me and she mates with someone who only has blond hair and is also the same race as her. If we continue this pattern over time, we should see that my group only has black hair and her group only has blonde hair. Yet, both me and her started out as the same race right? Based on the standards of current racial distinction (skin deep or what we can see with the eye)- we are different because we have different colored hair. So we must be a different race right? Lets say me and her are race "A" and I hope you remember that we only mated with members of race "A". Wait a second, so since we have a difference in race - atleast what we classify as race - we must be different races right? So I was race "A" and I only mated with race "A" I should be race "A" and same for her. WAIT, thats not right because we should be different races? We should be different races because of our hair color! So I hope the distinction between me and my sister and the birds are clear - one had a change that was caused by natural selection and one does not. So lets look back at me and my sister. We both started out as the same race, mated with the same race, yet came out as different races? Well why did we come out as different races? Because we classify race LITERALLY skin deep. We don't take genetics into account when we classify race - we only consider looks. What we call race is NOT SCIENTIFIC and what we know as genetics is COMPLETELY SCIENTIFIC. So errors occur when we try to connect the two. When I say, hes black. I'm definitely not taking a sample of his DNA and saying oh yeah right hes black. I just look at his skin tone and came to a conclusion. So based on logic, I was race "A" and I mated with race "A" so I must be race "A" right and same for my sister. The same logic applies to humans as a whole. Genetically, we are really still tat same race. However, the social distinction for race (skin deep) is much more different than a genetic basis.

Also, scientists dispute what it means to be a different species/race. I think in your case you're arguing that since there is a variable genetic difference (skin deep) in some individuals in some of the social constructs of what we call race then there is a genetic basis for race - which is a reasonable conclusion , but not as well supported. My point is that there are different species because certain favorable traits become expressed/not expressed. In the case of humans, the only difference in us is that we migrated - like my sister and I. We came into an error when I started to calculate what race I was. I was race "A" and I mated with race "A so I'm race "A" . Same goes for my sister. Yet we both came out as the same race ,but we sense that it's not true because we're a different race. The reason for this discrepancy is because race is subjective. Race is a social construct and really has no genetic pretense. What I mean by that is not that we are all EXACTLY the same, but that race doesn't matter and genetics and race shouldn't come to mind. We were all subject to the same forces of natural selection (good looks and strong men) so there really isn't a change between us.

I'll be honest and say I basically just paraphrased the work of many others. But, I hope you get it. And this is a subjective argument. It's like voting between liberals and conservatives. You can't really prove the other person wrong.

Edit: Another example to try to make the point.

I think its pretty indisputable that race is based on what we see and what we think. So lets consider 2 worlds. Our world and World "B". Lets say our worlds are both populated by humans. The only difference in humans between our world and world "B" is that world "B" classifies humans into races based on the ability to curve their tongue into the U-shape and not skin color. Genetically, lets consider black and a white person. We would consider them different races ,however world "B" could call them the same race depending on their ability to roll their rongue. So, obvious discrepancies arrive if we try to connect genetics and how the 2 world views race. Genetics is a SOUND SCIENTIFIC subject. Yet, if we say there is a DEFINITE relationship between genetics and race. Then, there must be relationships in terms of genetics of both the worlds and their views of race - which we can see probably won't exist.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 09:28 AM.

[Sweeney]

My point: The classifications in which we call race are skin deep and has no real genetic implications. Well I guess in terms of genetics, you could say black people have dark skin tones. So after we classify them into the race, we group them on a physical quality. In other words, its really not showing anything. A difference in genetic basis should mean that there is a significant difference. So lets take for example birds. Darwin saw that there was a fundamental beak difference between birds. This has far greater implications. It means there was an evolutionary change that caused this. In terms of humans, there was no evolutionary change. It was simply one group of people migrating to another area. There were no conditions that made natural selection occur - which was different in the bird case. A blind person can tell the difference between the 2 birds but not the 2 different skin tones. Likewise, with a genome. A difference in genetic basis would really mean that when early humans started migrating, there were conditions for natural selection that differ from each group. For example, lets consider 2 populations of birds in 2 different areas. If in one area, a certain type of beak seems to have an advantage in getting food then that beak would be subject to natural selection - asssuming all the other conditions of natural selection occur. Then, we can say there is a genetic basis in those 2 birds. In the case of humans, the qualities that promote reproduction are the same - good looks, strong men, etc etc. So, we can think of it as us being essentially the same.

So the argument I see against what I wrote above is "So if we're so similiar then why are there different skin colors?". So lets consider only me and my sister -obviously we're the same race. I have black hair and she has blonde hair. Lets say I mate with someone who only has black hair and whose the same race as me and she mates with someone who only has blond hair and is also the same race as her. If we continue this pattern over time, we should see that my group only has black hair and her group only has blonde hair. Yet, both me and her started out as the same race right? Based on the standards of current racial distinction (skin deep or what we can see with the eye)- we are different because we have different colored hair. So we must be a different race right? Lets say me and her are race "A" and I hope you remember that we only mated with members of race "A". Wait a second, so since we have a difference in race - atleast what we classify as race - we must be different races right? So I was race "A" and I only mated with race "A" I should be race "A" and same for her. WAIT, thats not right because we should be different races? We should be different races because of our hair color! So I hope the distinction between me and my sister and the birds are clear - one had a change that was caused by natural selection and one does not. So lets look back at me and my sister. We both started out as the same race, mated with the same race, yet came out as different races? Well why did we come out as different races? Because we classify race LITERALLY skin deep. We don't take genetics into account when we classify race - we only consider looks. So errors occur when we try to connect the two. When I say, hes black. I'm definitely not taking a sample of his DNA and saying oh yeah right hes black. I just look at his skin tone and came to a conclusion. So based on logic, I was race "A" and I mated with race "A" so I must be race "A" right and same for my sister. The same logic applies to humans as a whole. Genetically, we are really still tat same race. However, the social distinction for race (skin deep) is much more different than a genetic basis.

Also, scientists dispute what it means to be a different species/race. I think in your case you're arguing that since there is a variable genetic difference (skin deep) in some individuals in some of the social constructs of what we call race then there is a genetic basis for race - which is a reasonable conclusion , but not as well supported. My point is that there are different species because certain favorable traits become expressed/not expressed. In the case of humans, the only difference in us is that we migrated - like my sister and I. We came into an error when I started to calculate what race I was. I was race "A" and I mated with race "A so I'm race "A" . Same goes for my sister. Yet we both came out as the same race ,but we sense that it's not true because we're a different race. The reason for this discrepancy is because race is subjective. Race is a social construct and really has no genetic pretense. What I mean by that is not that we are all EXACTLY the same, but that race doesn't matter and genetics and race shouldn't come to mind. We were all subject to the same forces of natural selection (good looks and strong men) so there really isn't a change between us.

I'll be honest and say I basically just paraphrased the work of many others. But, I hope you get it. And this is a subjective argument. It's like voting between liberals and conservatives. You can't really prove the other person wrong.

Right.
So what you're saying is that as long as you classify race using parameters that are visual, and basic, such as skin tone, then race is only skin deep, and has no genetic implications?
That sounds awfully tautological.

What about the african propensity for denser ankle bones? Or the asian propensity for lactose intolerance?
The caucasion predisposition to type one diabetes?

You're attacking a strawman definition of race, and you're right, this conversation is therefore rendered utterly pointless.

And by the way, the reason that skin tone is a poor indicator of, well, anything, is the fact that it's controlled by so few genes.
It has little interdependancy with other traits, and doesn't blend into a continuum of colour.
Many people that consider themselves of a single race are far from it.

[Kat]

And are you trying to argue that being discriminated upon isn't based on social class/race and that it depends on each person in accordance to their values? That is so flawed I don't even know where to start... Just forget that you ever said that.

That's exactly what I said.
I will put an example for you, since you seem to not fucking get what I'm trying to say.

I'm an atheist, and I live in the south. Usually when someone who is religious finds out that I am an atheist, they discriminate against me because of it. Discrimination does not entail against just race or social class, or do I need to post the definition for you?
Where I live, the "societal factor of discrimination" is religion. My area is very culturally diverse, the social classes and races all get along. The only ones that clash are the different religions and those without.
So, let's not generalize that everywhere is how you say, that's what I was trying to get at.


Anyway. I'm done, you guys are so off-topic lol

[Ellipses]

Right.
So what you're saying is that as long as you classify race using parameters that are visual, and basic, such as skin tone, then race is only skin deep, and has no genetic implications?
That sounds awfully tautological.

What about the african propensity for denser ankle bones? Or the asian propensity for lactose intolerance?
The caucasion predisposition to type one diabetes?

You're attacking a strawman definition of race, and you're right, this conversation is therefore rendered utterly pointless.

And by the way, the reason that skin tone is a poor indicator of, well, anything, is the fact that it's controlled by so few genes.
It has little interdependancy with other traits, and doesn't blend into a continuum of colour.
Many people that consider themselves of a single race are far from it.

What I am saying is that we primarily look at skin color to determine race. Skin color is a big indication in our view in race. Unless, you don't use skin color as a way to determine race. You probably check ankle density and ask if people are lactose intolerant right? So a white person with high ankle density is considered black in your view? But if you still consider the person white, then why? Can't be because of his skin color cause we obviously don't classify people into race based on skin color and hair type! Duh, we check ankle density and lactose deficiency for race classification. In all seriousness, there probably are some small indications into what we classify into race. But there are also probably indications in the case of the people who roll their tongue in a U shape. Theres also indications into what we classify as our own race. I have 4 wisdom teeth and my sister doesn't. So I mean, you could look into the all the signs with the mind-agenda that there are significant differences between races and ignore all the glaring similarities between races and all the clear but invisible differences within races(because we aren't comparing and contrasting to people who are within the same race but rather we just look for differences between races)

Bottom line, I simplified my previous post by skin color because it is so undisputable that we use skin color/hair type to classify race. If we could view things in an objective matter, it would make no sense to try to connect genetics(objective) and race(subjective).


"And by the way, the reason that skin tone is a poor indicator of, well, anything, is the fact that it's controlled by so few genes.
It has little interdependancy with other traits, and doesn't blend into a continuum of colour.
Many people that consider themselves of a single race are far from it."

And thank you, helps me out with my point. It's pretty indisputable that we see race as primarily color and probably hair type too. Yet if its so independent from other traits, why do we use it to classify individuals?

As far as lactose intolerance goes african and south american populations have also shown to be generally lactose intolerant. Maybe a genetic indication ,but I'd probably guess it's more likely an indication of the lifestyle and probably some genetic truth to it as well. Diabetes and ankle density certainly do have a genetic component to it, but it can also be attributed to life style as well. For example, bones grow back bigger in diameter after it breaks. As you've said, even what we consider as race is blurred. People who think they are one race are probably more. With all this in mind, how can we OBJECTIVELY, measure the small variations that arrive when we compare what we view as race? It'd be as accurate as the IQ test comparison and the iq test comparison fails to take account of the social inequality that was part of the data.

Also, you talked about variations in genetics between races. You do realize there is even MORE genetic variation within races in the same local population than between races?

Edit:

That's exactly what I said.
I will put an example for you, since you seem to not fucking get what I'm trying to say.

I'm an atheist, and I live in the south. Usually when someone who is religious finds out that I am an atheist, they discriminate against me because of it. Discrimination does not entail against just race or social class, or do I need to post the definition for you?
Where I live, the "societal factor of discrimination" is religion. My area is very culturally diverse, the social classes and races all get along. The only ones that clash are the different religions and those without.
So, let's not generalize that everywhere is how you say, that's what I was trying to get at.


Anyway. I'm done, you guys are so off-topic lol

You're right in the fact that what you described is a form of discrimination. Which, is definitely easier to see. Its not as clear as the discrimination society puts on some people. My point is that if you randomly selected a coordinate in the U.S and we compare which issue is more dominant, it would be the issue of privilege distribution winning out most/all of the time. I mean just look at the racial distribution in our welfare system. We don't take turns being poor and rich. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. It's awfully unfair for us to compare the minor discrimination we experience such as name-calling, being too short, being too tall, being too fat, being too skinny, or practicing a certain religion to lifetime in poverty. I'm not saying that we should ignore this kind of discrimination, but I don't see this as much of an issue because we can fight this a lot easier. We can see that someone is being mistreated but we can't see the inherited advantages we get over others that we didn't deserve or earn.

The issue of religious/racial discrimination is apparently being remedied thru time. Some interventions have definitely contributed to that such as civil rights movement and such. However, the issue at hand when it comes to discrimination is primarily based on social class.

You made a great point in saying that people of different social classes get along cause they do!

"Where I live, the "societal factor of discrimination" is religion. My area is very culturally diverse, the social classes and races all get along."

^^ However, thats the biggest problem. We don't see the way privileges are distributed and how social inequality affects us. We ignore the problem because it's not one of those problems that are easy to see. Like, its easy to see a fire in your house but its hard to detect carbon monoxide, yet they are both deadly. In other words, we don't see this as an issue. We think things are alright just the way they are. We live in a country where we believe "If I work hard I will get far in life" ,but thats being blocked off by social inequality. Of course you dont see rich and poor people fighting everyday ,but the forces at play are constantly at work. Lets just explore 2 people with the same qualification Sam and Rob. Sam is the son of a rich person and Rob is the son of a poor person. Whose more likely to have connections to get a job? So, Sam is more likely to get a job and Rob doesn't get the job even though he might be just as qualified if not more qualified. As a society, we see Sam as a respectable worker and Rob as unemployed and lazy. Yet from a merit-based view, they were equal but the outcomes they experienced were unequal. Rob isn't going to punch Sam for getting a job they were equally qualified for but we can see how these forces can discriminate one person against another. Look at the welfare system, the people who are in welfare are likely to stay in welfare. This is the ultimate form of discrimination because most of us don't even realize this is happening.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 11:05 AM.

[Sweeney]

Right, so the fact that you think "black" and "white", and presumably "yellow", are races, that means there's no genetic basis for race?

You're an idiot.
And no, that's not an ad hominem, because this isn't a debate anymore.

[Ellipses]

Right, so the fact that you think "black" and "white", and presumably "yellow", are races, that means there's no genetic basis for race?

You're an idiot.
And no, that's not an ad hominem, because this isn't a debate anymore.

You're over simplifying what I'm saying. Which is understandable because you obviously don't get it.

As what I can see

Your point: Theres obviously a genetic basis for race. People of different races are different than each other.

My point: Yes, but that difference does not indicate a genetic basis for race. People of the same local population are more genetically diverse than people from a different race.

As far as an idiot goes, I guess I'm an idiot for holding the common ground belief that many other professors from many institutions share. You should put your degree to work and try to prove how much of an idiot each and every one of us are.

Edit: As far as whose right and whose wrong. We both definitely cant PROVE our points - nobody can when it comes to this. However, I find all the evidence quite compelling and you do not. Simple as that.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[Vendel]

I'm not saying we should follow every word in the bible. I'm not religious - I don't believe we're going to heaven/hell after we die. What I am saying is that there are certain stories/text in the bible which can influence us in a positive way - the story of the good samiritan etc etc. You can probably tell I'm not that familiar with the bible. And I find it hard to imagine that people who are religious do every act with the mind set of "If I don't donate money, I'll go to hell". I believe its more instinctive than intentional. If a couple of kids approached someone who is religious and asked for a donation for like relieve efforts in Japan, I'd just find it extremely hard to believe that the first thing that comes to mind is that "oh if I don't donate, I'm going to hell". I'd find it much more likely that something along the lines of "Why not? It's only a dollar. Might as well help out a little bit". And I'm not sure whether religion has to do with this instinctive good deed ,but I find it likely that it has some factor in it.

Religion is the source of discrimination? As far as discrimination of our country in current times, religion is not the source. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons for this and religion is not a primary source of it. Government/policies are the source of discrimination. And it was not intentional, it was just a perverse effect of the ill-policies we enacted.
*snip due to being off topic*
Yes that event happened in the pass. So how many instances of people shoving religion down native americans throats today? People still preach religion, but definitely not to that extent.

edit: I reread what I wrote and I realize I have extremely poor grammar. Please excuse this, its just a forum post and not an essay ,but I know its annoying considering how much I wrote. So yeah, sorry guys.

Alright... I assume you chose to ignore EVERYTHING I wrote in favor debating with a figment of your imagination, because you not only missed my main point entirely, you went insanely insanely off topic.

My point was about how religion as moral guidelines are terrible. Whereas your post was denying that the existence of religions are a source of discrimination entirely. I ask you this, how can you honestly say that the existence of opposing ideologies not generate discrimination and conflict? How can monotheistic religions, all claiming that their god is the only one, and all others are false not conflict? I'd give examples, but it might be better if you just read world news, because you are being completely and utterly ignorant of the present day.

In your first paragraph you also talked about how there are examples of human good in the bible, but that was also addressed in my last post, which I assume you did not actually read.

Just for emphasis, my point was about how pathetic religions are as means to guide morals. Read my post you replied to for details.


PS: I'm sure by now this post is pretty redundant because others may already have answered you for me. Seems like there were alot of posts today.

Edit: After reading Dogger’s prior posts, I find the progression of his answers amusing. This is the general layout(when he’s not ignoring a refutation entirely) :

*Dogger makes his point*

*forum member refutes and invalidates the point*

*Dogger then says they misunderstood.
Proceeds to outline broader argument*

*forum member refutes and invalidates the point again*

*Dogger then says they misunderstood again.
Proceeds to outline an ever broader argument*

*forum member refutes and invalidates the point again*

*Dogger then says they misunderstood again.
Proceeds to outline an ever broader argument.
Now adds oddly specific constraints that were not around in his first point*

*forum member refutes and invalidates the point again*

I’m sure you get the idea now. I personally found this pretty amusing. He also has a tendency to go onto off topic rants.

Edited by Delcer, 22 August 2011 - 03:12 PM.

[Ellipses]

Alright... I assume you chose to ignore EVERYTHING I wrote in favor debating with a figment of your imagination, because you not only missed my main point entirely, you went insanely insanely off topic.

My point was about how religion as moral guidelines are terrible. Whereas your post was denying that the existence of religions are a source of discrimination entirely. I ask you this, how can you honestly say that the existence of opposing ideologies not generate discrimination and conflict? How can monotheistic religions, all claiming that their god is the only one, and all others are false not conflict? I'd give examples, but it might be better if you just read world news, because you are being completely and utterly ignorant of the present day.

In your first paragraph you also talked about how there are examples of human good in the bible, but that was also addressed in my last post, which I assume you did not actually read.

Just for emphasis, my point was about how pathetic religions are as means to guide morals. Read my post you replied to for details.


PS: I'm sure by now this post is pretty redundant because others may already have answered you for me. Seems like there were alot of posts today.

Oh my bad. I guess I misunderstood you.

Anyways, side note, people are getting awfully emotional in this debate. I mean, the title says it all. Don't expect people to be swayed so easily. There's a reason politics today is mainly dominated by liberals and conservatives. It's not just one party because some things you just can't convince others. It's basically your beliefs and the best you can do is to explain and try to convince others.

So I'll stick to the topic of religion and moral guidelines.

I agree that religion can be a bad guideline for morals. I know some churches interpret the bible word for word and that is known to cause issues. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church. But, in my experience as far as church goes, I think generally it can't be bad for the common people. The pastor doesn't preach "Hate all muslims/Jews/anyone who doesn't practice our religion". I hope you do acknowledge that there are some good values in the bible - as well as bad ones. However, pastors and preachers generally focus on passages with a positive theme.

And as far as the conflicts from religion is concerned, it's obviously an issue. It's really a mixture of politics and religion - I would actually say its mostly religion and Israel has had a history with this. Obviously, its pretty serious. Despite this though, I don't think the practice of christianity for the common people (not too extremist) is detrimental. It does have good values instilled in it and it has some/alot of controversial ones instilled in it too. It's really up to the individual to be inspired/influenced by the good values. Overall, church is a pretty friendly experience - for me atleast. If anyone of you has gone to a church, I'd be pretty surprised if they practiced hating on other religions. Which is possible of course, and true too if you go to westboro baptist church. But, ultimately I think its really up to the individual sense of morals. There are many people who used to go to westboro baptist and they just felt like they were doing something wrong. As a result, they left.

Hopefully, no hard feelings toward anyone here. I mean its just debating ,but I understand if people get a bit heated. I do too, but we shouldn't be holding grudges.

Edit: As far as my points go, most of it was me arguing that "there is no genetic basis for race". If you call my point wrong. Just google the phrase and there will be alot of people in support of it - and of course a lot of people who don't support it as well.

Edit2: I understand if you're heated at me right now. But I mean you have to be valid about it. The idea that there is no genetic basis for race is pretty much just by evidence - so theres no way to prove it right or wrong. So it's really just an opinion. I'm compelled by the evidence so I believe it. So its wrong for you to call my opinion wrong. Its like saying "I like Steve Nash" "thats an invalid point"

Edit 3: For off topicness, I am definitely off topic! I agree. But, I didn't start off that way. Look at my first post. Just my reasoning for god/no god. Then someone brought up the topic of discrimination. And so the conversation went in that direction. It's not like I started off completely off topic.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 03:23 PM.

[Sweeney]

You can't compare the Christian system of morality (which, by the way, is not the only religion in the world; congratulations on some astounding Amerocentrism) to having no system of morality at all. By that standard, anything is an improvement. Even the ethical sensibilities of Westboro.

What you ought to do is compare the morals upheld by Christianity to those espoused by humanism, or some other comparable framework.

You see, it doesn't matter if religion is better than nothing, it matters if religion is better than everything else. Which it demonstrably isn't.
Humanism, as an example, upholds all the positive aspects of religious ethics, with none of the downsides. It also doesn't depend on an objective lawgiver and judgement-maker.
Humanism has never condemned anyone to a life of eternal suffering for stealing an apple. Humanists have never gone to Africa to convince millions of people that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, or to throw acid in the faces of the children they think to be witches. Humanists have never shot doctors who perform livesaving abortion operations.

And I don't understand why you're resurrecting your ridiculous diatribe about race. You don't understand the soundbite you're referring to, and the discussion ended several posts ago.

[Ellipses]

You can't compare the Christian system of morality (which, by the way, is not the only religion in the world; congratulations on some astounding Amerocentrism) to having no system of morality at all. By that standard, anything is an improvement. Even the ethical sensibilities of Westboro.

What you ought to do is compare the morals upheld by Christianity to those espoused by humanism, or some other comparable framework.

You see, it doesn't matter if religion is better than nothing, it matters if religion is better than everything else. Which it demonstrably isn't.
Humanism, as an example, upholds all the positive aspects of religious ethics, with none of the downsides. It also doesn't depend on an objective lawgiver and judgement-maker.
Humanism has never condemned anyone to a life of eternal suffering for stealing an apple. Humanists have never gone to Africa to convince millions of people that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV, or to throw acid in the faces of the children they think to be witches. Humanists have never shot doctors who perform livesaving abortion operations.

And I don't understand why you're resurrecting your ridiculous diatribe about race. You don't understand the soundbite you're referring to, and the discussion ended several posts ago.

You know, you're probably right. Humanism is a much better approach than religion. However,I see it as only religion gives a false/relieving sense of hope. We're probably bound to get into another argument about whether thats good or not. I personally think it's good ,but I understand why someone would think otherwise.

As far as my "ridiculous distribe" about race. I'm supporting the STATUS QUO belief. You're the one whose trying to reason that what is commonly believed among people in the area is wrong. I understand there is no certain way to completely convince others. Perhaps you're right. However, it's going to take more than basic reasoning (whose common sense wouldn't reason that there is a genetic basis for race? I'd certainly believed that until I was compelled otherwise by evidence).

Anyways, you can have the last say in this topic. I hate to push peoples buttons some more ,but it's pretty obvious that you're one of those people who can't stand to be questioned - no offense. Anyone reading the whole debate can look at the evidence I provide - all the links - and your reasoning. You can call me stupid or whatever. I won't fight back anymore - I might reply though if it's something ridiculous. Though, I'll just take your last jab at me most likely.

Hopefully, no hard feelings. I know I got a little mean at times ,but I didn't come into the debate with the mindset to get people upset.

Edited by Dogger, 23 August 2011 - 09:18 AM.

[Gen]

IDK why, but this post really annoyed me.

When the statement holds true for at least 75% of the people in question, it's not really generalizing, it's more the moral majority. And honestly on the original post you commented on, I think it's closer to 90-95% correct. So, generalizing is definitely tolerable. Just because YOU happen to be a "non-athiest" that can respect others beliefs doesn't mean everyone else is. I have yet to EVER meet a person of religion who can respect anothers right to not believe in god. I've lived all over the USA, spent time in the UK and Canada. It's the same everywhere. Either you believe in god, or you're wrong and need to be converted. There is no respect for the right to choose.

That being said, if you are a person of religion who respects others beliefs, kudos. There should be a hell of a lot more of you.

But, it's doubtful that will ever happen. Religion IMHO is a bad thing, it takes away the free will of the followers and conditions them to blindly follow thier pasters. There's a reason they call a church's following a flock, they want you to blindly follow the herd like a sheep.



When it comes to my own beleifs, I think many will disagree with me. I don't see a point in debating about "god" or an all powerful being who created us.. It's called being an apathetic agnostic. But, I hate the word agnostic.. It was derived by the Christians way back when from the word ignorant. I do, however, believe the definition to the T. Don't worry if god exists, it doesn't matter. If said being does exist, they're gone. They made us and split. They're not still watching, waiting to shuttle us off to "heaven" and "hell." They don't exist. Your bible says it plain as day "earth is the new heaven." I wish more people would pull their heads out of their asses and realize this. Take some time to look at the clouds, take in nature. Enjoy this beautiful world we have. It's all we're going to get.

The biggest problem is that when people look at "Religion" and "God", they usually relate it directly to Catholicism, Judaism or Islamism, which is perfectly normal, since they're the religions with most followers in the world. There are a lot of other religions and cults that dont even care about what other people think and have different ideas of the meaning of "God".


My way of thinking is that if the person is happy with their beliefs, why should I try to make their life a hell and try to put ideas on their mind that they'll never accept. Both will end up bashing each other in a cycle that never ends, always with those questions that neither of them can answer. So, I believe in a god, completely different from the three biggest monotheist religions do, and I'm happy with that, and I wouldn't bother if someone tried to make me think that it doesnt exist, since it would take both of us nowhere. I wont stop believing in this god because someone says it doesnt exist, and I won't try to make someone else believe in god just because I think that it exists.
I dont really follow any religion, but even when I was catholic I didnt really bother, because I had a lot of faith. That faith got shaken by some experiences, but in the end I still had a strong faith, not in the same god I believed in though (that image of a man who knows everything, etc)...

[Broham]

I believe in god if by god you mean creator, and by creator you mean my mom.

[baby0firefly]

No. But most people need something to believe in hence why the santa exists haha. It's pathetic actually.

[Monsoon]

Nope, I don't. But i'm also not one of those people who judge others who do.

[onethreezerotwo]

I think I'm a relatively interesting case. I have a BS in Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology and I believe in God, and Jesus, the ineffability of the Bible and the importance of the Church. The structure of modern day religion, however, is less appealing for me. The Church was never supposed to be a collection of feuding, judgmental, hypocritical or homophobic buildings: it is the ecclesia, the called ones, who have the commission to be relational and joyous about the good news of Jesus. Christianity as the world knows it fails, more often than not, to be the "light" that it is supposed to be, and it is embarrassing and frustrating.

[Vendel]

I think I'm a relatively interesting case. I have a BS in Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology and I believe in God, and Jesus, the ineffability of the Bible and the importance of the Church.

I agree you're an interesting case. I have a question though, why do you believe in god?

Edited by Delcer, 28 September 2011 - 01:50 PM.

[Nymh]

I believe in a lot of things. Magic, enlightenment, nirvana...

Divinity is something I haven't quite figured out yet. I have a feeling that it resides within everything, and all of us are connected to it.

But I haven't quite made up my mind on that one yet.

[chicityballa]

I personally do because in my opinion some of the creations in front of us are far too amazing to believe there is no such thing as a divine figure.

[onethreezerotwo]

I agree you're an interesting case. I have a question though, why do you believe in god?

Because I've experienced the presence, joy and work of God in my life.

[AyoForYayo]

no. i also dont believe in big foot

[Vendel]

Because I've experienced the presence, joy and work of God in my life.

That doesn't tell me very much, but I honestly didn't expect very much either.

What makes you so sure that your religion stands above all others as true when there are hundreds of other conflicting beliefs?

I personally do because in my opinion some of the creations in front of us are far too amazing to believe there is no such thing as a divine figure.

In other words, because you don't understand something, you attribute it to god. Nice, there's a epitome of ignorance right there. Do you know what they used to call natural disasters? Acts of God, because they couldn't explain why they happened, kind of like the reason you believe. Any other reason you believe in fairy magic?

Edited by Delcer, 29 September 2011 - 12:24 PM.

[Glow]

I'm forced to go to religious classes, and I'd like to believe God is real, but honestly, I think it's just a fairytale made up by people who needed something to worship.


I only keep 'believing' so that my parents don't shun me. :U